Parents' Perspectives on the Utility of Genomic Sequencing in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit.

BACKGROUND: It is critical to understand the wide-ranging clinical and non-clinical effects of genome sequencing (GS) for parents in the NICU context. We assessed parents' experiences with GS as a first-line diagnostic tool for infants with suspected genetic conditions in the NICU. METHODS: Parents of newborns (N = 62) suspected of having a genetic condition were recruited across five hospitals in the southeast United States as part of the SouthSeq study. Semi-structured interviews (N = 78) were conducted after parents received their child's sequencing result (positive, negative, or variants of unknown significance). Thematic analysis was performed on all interviews. RESULTS: Key themes included that (1) GS in infancy is important for reproductive decision making, preparing for the child's future care, ending the diagnostic odyssey, and sharing results with care providers; (2) the timing of disclosure was acceptable for most parents, although many reported the NICU environment was overwhelming; and (3) parents deny that receiving GS results during infancy exacerbated parent-infant bonding, and reported variable impact on their feelings of guilt. CONCLUSION: Parents reported that GS during the neonatal period was useful because it provided a "backbone" for their child's care. Parents did not consistently endorse negative impacts like interference with parent-infant bonding.

Medical and psychosocial outcomes of state-funded population genomic screening.

As the uptake of population screening expands, assessment of medical and psychosocial outcomes is needed. Through the Alabama Genomic Health Initiative (AGHI), a state-funded genomic research program, individuals received screening for pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in 59 actionable genes via genotyping. Of the 3874 eligible participants that received screening results, 858 (22%) responded to an outcomes survey. The most commonly reported motivation for seeking testing through AGHI was contribution to genetic research (64%). Participants with positive results reported a higher median number of planned actions (median = 5) due to AGHI results as compared to negative results (median = 3). Interviews were conducted with survey participants with positive screening results. As determined by certified genetic counselors, 50% of interviewees took appropriate medical action based on their result. There were no negative or harmful actions taken. These findings indicate population genomic screening of an unselected adult population is feasible, is not harmful, and may have positive outcomes on participants now and in the future; however, further research is needed in order to assess clinical utility.

Education and Training of Non-Genetics Providers on the Return of Genome Sequencing Results in a NICU Setting.

To meet current and expected future demand for genome sequencing in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), adjustments to traditional service delivery models are necessary. Effective programs for the training of non-genetics providers (NGPs) may address the known barriers to providing genetic services including limited genetics knowledge and lack of confidence. The SouthSeq project aims to use genome sequencing to make genomic diagnoses in the neonatal period and evaluate a scalable approach to delivering genome sequencing results to populations with limited access to genetics professionals. Thirty-three SouthSeq NGPs participated in a live, interactive training intervention and completed surveys before and after participation. Here, we describe the protocol for the provider training intervention utilized in the SouthSeq study and the associated impact on NGP knowledge and confidence in reviewing, interpreting, and using genome sequencing results. Participation in the live training intervention led to an increased level of confidence in critical skills needed for real-world implementation of genome sequencing. Providers reported a significant increase in confidence level in their ability to review, understand, and use genome sequencing result reports to guide patient care. Reported barriers to implementation of genome sequencing in a NICU setting included test cost, lack of insurance coverage, and turn around time. As implementation of genome sequencing in this setting progresses, effective education of NGPs is critical to provide access to high-quality and timely genomic medicine care.

Genome sequencing as a first-line diagnostic test for hospitalized infants.

PURPOSE: SouthSeq is a translational research study that undertook genome sequencing (GS) for infants with symptoms suggestive of a genetic disorder. Recruitment targeted racial/ethnic minorities and rural, medically underserved areas in the Southeastern United States, which are historically underrepresented in genomic medicine research. METHODS: GS and analysis were performed for 367 infants to detect disease-causal variation concurrent with standard of care evaluation and testing. RESULTS: Definitive diagnostic (DD) or likely diagnostic (LD) genetic findings were identified in 30% of infants, and 14% of infants harbored an uncertain result. Only 43% of DD/LD findings were identified via concurrent clinical genetic testing, suggesting that GS testing is better for obtaining early genetic diagnosis. We also identified phenotypes that correlate with the likelihood of receiving a DD/LD finding, such as craniofacial, ophthalmologic, auditory, skin, and hair abnormalities. We did not observe any differences in diagnostic rates between racial/ethnic groups. CONCLUSION: We describe one of the largest-to-date GS cohorts of ill infants, enriched for African American and rural patients. Our results show the utility of GS because it provides early-in-life detection of clinically relevant genetic variations not detected by current clinical genetic testing, particularly for infants exhibiting certain phenotypic features.

The Therapeutic Odyssey: Positioning Genomic Sequencing in the Search for a Child's Best Possible Life.

Background: The desire of parents to obtain a genetic diagnosis for their child with intellectual disability and associated symptoms has long been framed as a diagnostic odyssey, an arduous and sometimes perilous journey focused on the goal of identifying a cause for the child's condition.Methods: Semi-structured interviews (N = 60) were conducted with parents of children (N = 59, aged 2-24 years) with intellectual disability and/or developmental delay (IDD) who underwent genome sequencing at a single pediatric multispecialty clinic. Interviews were conducted after parents received their child's sequencing result (positive findings, negative findings, or variants of unknown significance). Thematic analysis was performed on all interviews.Results: Parents reported that obtaining a genetic diagnosis was one important step in their overall goal of helping their child live their best life possible life. They intended to use the result as a tool to help their child by seeking the correct school placement and obtaining benefits and therapeutic services.Conclusions: For the parents of children with IDD, the search for a genetic diagnosis is best conceptualized as a part of parents' ongoing efforts to leverage various diagnoses to obtain educational and therapeutic services for their children. Cleaving parents' search for a genetic diagnosis from these broader efforts obscures the value that some parents place on a sequencing result in finding and tailoring therapies and services beyond the clinic. Interviews with parents reveal, therefore, that genomic sequencing is best understood as one important stage of an ongoing therapeutic odyssey that largely takes place outside the clinic. Findings suggest the need to expand translational research efforts to contextualize a genetic diagnosis within parents' broader efforts to obtain educational and therapeutic services outside clinical contexts.

A review and definition of 'usual care' in genetic counseling trials to standardize use in research.

The descriptor 'usual care' refers to standard or routine care. Yet, no formal definition exists. The need to define what constitutes usual care arises in clinical research. Often one arm in a trial represents usual care in comparison with a novel intervention. Accordingly, usual care in genetic counseling research appears predominantly in randomized controlled trials. Recent standards for reporting genetic counseling research call for standardization, but do not address usual care. We (1) inventoried all seven studies in the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Consortium (CSER) about how genetic counseling was conceptualized, conducted, and whether a usual care arm was involved; (2) conducted a review of published randomized control trials in genetic counseling, comparing how researchers describe usual care groups; and (3) reviewed existing professionally endorsed definitions and practice descriptions of genetic counseling. We found wide variation in the content and delivery of usual care. Descriptions frequently detailed the content of usual care, most often noting assessment of genetic risk factors, collecting family histories, and offering testing. A minority included addressing psychological concerns or the risks versus benefits of testing. Descriptions of how care was delivered were vague except for mode and type of clinician, which varied. This significant variation, beyond differences expected among subspecialties, reduces the validity and generalizability of genetic counseling research. Ideally, research reflects clinical practice so that evidence generated can be used to improve clinical outcomes. To address this objective, we propose a definition of usual care in genetic counseling research that merges common elements from the National Society of Genetic Counselors' practice definition, the Reciprocal Engagement Model, and the Accreditation Council for Genetic Counselors' practice-based competencies. Promoting consistent execution of usual care in the design of genetic counseling trials can lead to more consistency in representing clinical care and facilitate the generation of evidence to improve it.

A state-based approach to genomics for rare disease and population screening.

PURPOSE: The Alabama Genomic Health Initiative (AGHI) is a state-funded effort to provide genomic testing. AGHI engages two distinct cohorts across the state of Alabama. One cohort includes children and adults with undiagnosed rare disease; a second includes an unselected adult population. Here we describe findings from the first 176 rare disease and 5369 population cohort AGHI participants. METHODS: AGHI participants enroll in one of two arms of a research protocol that provides access to genomic testing results and biobank participation. Rare disease cohort participants receive genome sequencing to identify primary and secondary findings. Population cohort participants receive genotyping to identify pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants for actionable conditions. RESULTS: Within the rare disease cohort, genome sequencing identified likely pathogenic or pathogenic variation in 20% of affected individuals. Within the population cohort, 1.5% of individuals received a positive genotyping result. The rate of genotyping results corroborated by reported personal or family history varied by gene. CONCLUSIONS: AGHI demonstrates the ability to provide useful health information in two contexts: rare undiagnosed disease and population screening. This utility should motivate continued exploration of ways in which emerging genomic technologies might benefit broad populations.

Identifying rare, medically relevant variation via population-based genomic screening in Alabama: opportunities and pitfalls.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness and specificity of population-based genomic screening in Alabama. METHODS: The Alabama Genomic Health Initiative (AGHI) has enrolled and evaluated 5369 participants for the presence of pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants using the Illumina Global Screening Array (GSA), with validation of all P/LP variants via Sanger sequencing in a CLIA-certified laboratory before return of results. RESULTS: Among 131 variants identified by the GSA that were evaluated by Sanger sequencing, 67 (51%) were false positives (FP). For 39 of the 67 FP variants, a benign/likely benign variant was present at or near the targeted P/LP variant. Variants detected within African American individuals were significantly enriched for FPs, likely due to a higher rate of nontargeted alternative alleles close to array-targeted P/LP variants. CONCLUSION: In AGHI, we have implemented an array-based process to screen for highly penetrant genetic variants in actionable disease genes. We demonstrate the need for clinical validation of array-identified variants in direct-to-consumer or population testing, especially for diverse populations.

Recruiting diversity where it exists: The Alabama Genomic Health Initiative.

Lack of diversity among genomic research participants results in disparities in benefits from genetic testing. To address this, the Alabama Genomic Health Initiative employed community engagement strategies to recruit diverse populations where they lived. In this paper, we describe our engagement techniques and recruitment strategies, which resulted in significant improvement in representation of African American participants. While African American participation has not reached the representation of this community as a percentage of Alabama's overall population (26%-27%), we have achieved an overall representation exceeding 20% for African Americans. We believe this demonstrates the value of engagement and recruitment where diverse populations reside.

Lessons learned about harmonizing survey measures for the CSER consortium.

INTRODUCTION: Implementation of genome-scale sequencing in clinical care has significant challenges: the technology is highly dimensional with many kinds of potential results, results interpretation and delivery require expertise and coordination across multiple medical specialties, clinical utility may be uncertain, and there may be broader familial or societal implications beyond the individual participant. Transdisciplinary consortia and collaborative team science are well poised to address these challenges. However, understanding the complex web of organizational, institutional, physical, environmental, technologic, and other political and societal factors that influence the effectiveness of consortia is understudied. We describe our experience working in the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium, a multi-institutional translational genomics consortium. METHODS: A key aspect of the CSER consortium was the juxtaposition of site-specific measures with the need to identify consensus measures related to clinical utility and to create a core set of harmonized measures. During this harmonization process, we sought to minimize participant burden, accommodate project-specific choices, and use validated measures that allow data sharing. RESULTS: Identifying platforms to ensure swift communication between teams and management of materials and data were essential to our harmonization efforts. Funding agencies can help consortia by clarifying key study design elements across projects during the proposal preparation phase and by providing a framework for data sharing data across participating projects. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, time and resources must be devoted to developing and implementing collaborative practices as preparatory work at the beginning of project timelines to improve the effectiveness of research consortia.

Understanding the present and preparing for the future: Exploring the needs of diagnostic and elective genomic medicine patients.

Advances in genomic knowledge and technology have increased the use of comprehensive clinical sequencing tests. Genome sequencing has established utility for diagnosing patients with rare, undiagnosed diseases as well as interest in an elective context, without a clinical indication for testing. The Smith Family Clinic for Genomic Medicine, LLC in Huntsville, AL is a private practice genomic medicine clinic caring for both diagnostic (79%) and elective (21%) patients. Diagnostic and elective patients are seen on a clinical basis and receive standard care. Genome sequencing is provided on a self-pay basis, with assistance available for diagnostic patients who have financial need. Here, we describe demographics and motivations of the distinct patient populations and our experiences engaging patients in online education. Diagnostic patients were motivated by the possibility of receiving an explanation for symptoms (96%) while elective patients were motivated by the chance to learn about future disease risk (57%). Elective patients were less likely to engage with online education, with only 28% reading all assigned topics compared to 54% of diagnostic patients. Understanding the needs, interests, and barriers unique to diagnostic and elective patients is critical to inform individualized and scalable best practices in patient education and engagement.

Correction: Secondary findings from clinical genomic sequencing: prevalence, patient perspectives, family history assessment, and health-care costs from a multisite study.

The originally published version of this Article contained errors in Fig. 2. The numbers below the black arrowheads were incorrect; please see incorrect Figure in associated Correction. These errors have now been corrected in the PDF and HTML versions of the Article.

Secondary findings from clinical genomic sequencing: prevalence, patient perspectives, family history assessment, and health-care costs from a multisite study.

PURPOSE: Clinical sequencing emerging in health care may result in secondary findings (SFs). METHODS: Seventy-four of 6240 (1.2%) participants who underwent genome or exome sequencing through the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) Consortium received one or more SFs from the original American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) recommended 56 gene-condition pair list; we assessed clinical and psychosocial actions. RESULTS: The overall adjusted prevalence of SFs in the ACMG 56 genes across the CSER consortium was 1.7%. Initially 32% of the family histories were positive, and post disclosure, this increased to 48%. The average cost of follow-up medical actions per finding up to a 1-year period was $128 (observed, range: $0-$678) and $421 (recommended, range: $141-$1114). Case reports revealed variability in the frequency of and follow-up on medical recommendations patients received associated with each SF gene-condition pair. Participants did not report adverse psychosocial impact associated with receiving SFs; this was corroborated by 18 participant (or parent) interviews. All interviewed participants shared findings with relatives and reported that relatives did not pursue additional testing or care. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that disclosure of SFs shows little to no adverse impact on participants and adds only modestly to near-term health-care costs; additional studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Genomic sequencing identifies secondary findings in a cohort of parent study participants.

PURPOSE: Clinically relevant secondary variants were identified in parents enrolled with a child with developmental delay and intellectual disability. METHODS: Exome/genome sequencing and analysis of 789 "unaffected" parents was performed. RESULTS: Pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants were identified in 21 genes within 25 individuals (3.2%), with 11 (1.4%) participants harboring variation in a gene defined as clinically actionable by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. These 25 individuals self-reported either relevant clinical diagnoses (5); relevant family history or symptoms (13); or no relevant family history, symptoms, or clinical diagnoses (7). A limited carrier screen was performed yielding 15 variants in 48 (6.1%) parents. Parents were also analyzed as mate pairs (n = 365) to identify cases in which both parents were carriers for the same recessive disease, yielding three such cases (0.8%), two of which had children with the relevant recessive disease. Four participants had two findings (one carrier and one noncarrier variant). In total, 71 of the 789 enrolled parents (9.0%) received secondary findings. CONCLUSION: We provide an overview of the rates and types of clinically relevant secondary findings, which may be useful in the design and implementation of research and clinical sequencing efforts to identify such findings.

Genomic diagnosis for children with intellectual disability and/or developmental delay.

BACKGROUND: Developmental disabilities have diverse genetic causes that must be identified to facilitate precise diagnoses. We describe genomic data from 371 affected individuals, 309 of which were sequenced as proband-parent trios. METHODS: Whole-exome sequences (WES) were generated for 365 individuals (127 affected) and whole-genome sequences (WGS) were generated for 612 individuals (244 affected). RESULTS: Pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants were found in 100 individuals (27%), with variants of uncertain significance in an additional 42 (11.3%). We found that a family history of neurological disease, especially the presence of an affected first-degree relative, reduces the pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant identification rate, reflecting both the disease relevance and ease of interpretation of de novo variants. We also found that improvements to genetic knowledge facilitated interpretation changes in many cases. Through systematic reanalyses, we have thus far reclassified 15 variants, with 11.3% of families who initially were found to harbor a VUS and 4.7% of families with a negative result eventually found to harbor a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant. To further such progress, the data described here are being shared through ClinVar, GeneMatcher, and dbGaP. CONCLUSIONS: Our data strongly support the value of large-scale sequencing, especially WGS within proband-parent trios, as both an effective first-choice diagnostic tool and means to advance clinical and research progress related to pediatric neurological disease.

Eliciting preferences on secondary findings: the Preferences Instrument for Genomic Secondary Results.

PURPOSE: Eliciting and understanding patient and research participant preferences regarding return of secondary test results are key aspects of genomic medicine. A valid instrument should be easily understood without extensive pretest counseling while still faithfully eliciting patients' preferences. METHODS: We conducted focus groups with 110 adults to understand patient perspectives on secondary genomic findings and the role that preferences should play. We then developed and refined a draft instrument and used it to elicit preferences from parents participating in a genomic sequencing study in children with intellectual disabilities. RESULTS: Patients preferred filtering of secondary genomic results to avoid information overload and to avoid learning what the future holds, among other reasons. Patients preferred to make autonomous choices about which categories of results to receive and to have their choices applied automatically before results are returned to them and their clinicians. The Preferences Instrument for Genomic Secondary Results (PIGSR) is designed to be completed by patients or research participants without assistance and to guide bioinformatic analysis of genomic raw data. Most participants wanted to receive all secondary results, but a significant minority indicated other preferences. CONCLUSIONS: Our novel instrument-PIGSR-should be useful in a wide variety of clinical and research settings.Genet Med 19 3, 337-344.

Biotech 101: an educational outreach program in genetics and biotechnology.

Recent advances in research and biotechnology are making genetics and genomics increasingly relevant to the lives and health of the general public. For the public to make informed healthcare and public policy decisions relating to genetic information, there is a need for increased genetic literacy. Biotech 101 is a free, short-course for the local community introducing participants to topics in genetics, genomics, and biotechnology, created at the HudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology. This study evaluated the effectiveness of Biotech 101 in increasing the genetic literacy of program participants through pre-and-post surveys. Genetic literacy was measured through increases in self-perceived knowledge for each content area covered through the course and the self-reported impact the course had on various aspects of participants' lives. Three hundred ninety-two individuals attended Biotech 101 during the first three course offerings. Participants reported a significant increase in self-perceived knowledge for each content area (p < 0.01). Participants also reported the program had high levels of impact on their lives and decision-making, a high likelihood for continued self-learning, and overwhelming satisfaction with course content and logistics. Biotech 101 is an effective mechanism for impacting participants' lives and genetic literacy and serves as a model for other similar programs, adding to the currently limited evidence base regarding public educational strategies in genetics and biotechnology.